State v. Estrella J.C.
148 A.3d 594
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Estrella J.C., mother of the victim, was convicted after a 2012 jury trial of two counts of risk of injury to a child (a)(2) and one count (a)(1).
- Victim disclosed extensive sexual abuse beginning when seven or eight and continuing through early adolescence; expert and medical/psychological treatment followed at Clifford Beers and Yale clinic.
- Forensic interview of the victim with a Yale social worker Montelli was video recorded and later admitted at trial under the medical diagnosis and treatment hearsay exception.
- Sentences: two §53-21(a)(2) counts imposed five-year mandatory minimums (concurrent) and one §53-21(a)(1) count imposed ten years, all concurrent, totaling twelve years with eight years served.
- Appellate issues: admission of the video under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception; legality of the five-year mandatory minimum; admission of uncharged misconduct evidence; potential Crawford/confrontation implications arising from Jarzbek procedures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of video under medical diagnosis and treatment exception | Griswold supports admissibility of forensic video | Video was testimonial; sixth Amendment violation; not properly tested for treatment purpose | Video properly admitted under medical diagnosis and treatment exception |
| Illegal sentence - mandatory minimum under 53-21(a)(2) | Offenses occurred after July 1, 2007 so mandatory minimum applies | Some acts alleged pre-date amendment; jury must find under thirteen | Five-year mandatory minimum imposed valid; trial evidence supports post-2007 offenses; harmless error for age finding |
| Admission of uncharged misconduct evidence | Evidence rehabilitates victim credibility | Prejudicial and outside proper exceptions | Admissible to rehabilitate credibility; probative value not outweighed by prejudice |
| Confrontation clause concerns under Jarzbek/forensic interview | Witnesses available; Jarzbek testimony allowed | Confrontation rights violated by non-testifying video | No Crawford violation; Jarzbek framework appropriate; admissibility consistent with Griswold guidance |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griswold, 160 Conn. App. 528 (2015) (medical diagnosis and treatment exception applies to forensic interviews)
- State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (2002) (social worker within chain of medical care may apply medical exception)
- State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (2007) (forensic interviews by social workers within medical care context)
- State v. Donald M., 113 Conn. App. 63 (2009) (forensic interview admissibility standards in medical context)
- State v. Miller, 121 Conn. App. 775 (2010) (considerations for medical diagnosis and treatment exception)